Blog Comments

And where does Nolan get the evident, distorted, impression that I am the only person in America who objected to Trump's original (yes, I will call it cowardly) failure to stand up against the white supremacists and neo-nazis who caused the deadly riot in Virginia, and one of whose most prominent spokesmen claimed was inspired by the president's own views on race (including, of course, immigration)?

Why is Nolan not paying any attention to the same Republican leaders whose immigration objectives Nolan gives so much weight to, but whom he is now ignoring when they criticize the president for many of the same reasons that I have been doing above?

Nolan, isn't it about time for you to end your own personal denial of the racism and bigotry toward immigrants, and black or brown people in general, that began with Trump's kickoff to his presidential campaign just over two years ago (I am not even going into his previous despicable "birther" attacks on President Obama - that is clearly going too far afield from the current topic under discussion), and have been continuing right up to the moment of the president's initial weak and equivocal response to the latest neo-nazi rally in Virginia?

Everything I have been saying about the president and/or his GOP supporters in response to Nolan's above article is related to issues of immigration law or policy.

We are not talking about health care, North Korea or dozens of other issues that are not directly related to immigration and are obviously outside the scope of this discussion. Every one of my comments is in direct response to Nolan's well meant suggestion, which I have made clear that I support in principle - I am on Nolan's side here - for discussion about an immigration reform compromise.

This is a worthy goal, Nolan. I have said so repeatedly. What is so irritating about that?

However, having made clear that I am on Nolan's side in principle on this issue, I would also respectfully suggest that Nolan might want to accept and get used to the idea that there are some people who may, from time to time, disagree with some of his views on matters related to immigration law and policy and who may wish to express their own opinions in response to his articles.

Isn't that what ilw.com is all about? Isn't that what free discussion, including discussion among fellow attorneys, means?

If Nolan's various opinions are as valid as he obviously believes they are, why should he be so wary of opposing or dissenting views?

I hope and trust that his attempts to discourage or stifle expression of views on immigration issues that are different from his own opinions are not a sign of any lack of confidence by Nolan in the validity of his own arguments.

I am sure that Nolan will want to join me in congratulating and commending the president for finally showing real leadership in his, admittedly belated, clarification of his previous statement about the Charlottesville rally.

The president has now clearly condemned the white supremacists, KKK, neo-Nazis and other "extremist groups" that were responsible for this rally and the loss of three lives that resulted.

Now, all we need is a little backtracking on Trump's unequivocal support for the RAISE Act, whose restrictions on family immigration Nolan himself has pointed out are objectionable; and then there might be a better chance of such negotiations actually producing a result, instead of merely being an empty gesture and one more excuse for Nolan to blame the Democrats for a failure whose real cause goes back to racist attitudes toward immigrants that have been of America's history from the very beginning.

Nolan, isn't it time to admit and confront this sorry history of racism, which responsible leaders in both parties have condemned, and the effect that this history is still having on immigration policies and proposals today, rather than blaming other people for calling attention to this elephant in the presumptive immigration reform negotiating room?

Roger Algase
Attorney at Law

Really, Roger? Don't you remember how much trouble Trump had when he used a term that identified terrorists, i.e., "Islamic Extremists." Now you are criticizing him for not being specific enough.

But again, I wish you would make these comments in your own blogs instead of on mine. I don't care whether he is specific enough in identifying extremists or too specific. And that issue has nothing to do with my article. I made the mistake of replying anyway this time. It led nowhere. It never does.

I wouldn't mind so much if your tangents related to immigration issues, even if they were on wildly divergent tangents. But why Trump criticisms?

I am sure that Nolan will want to join me in congratulating and commending the president for finally showing real leadership in his, admittedly belated, clarification of his previous statement about the Charlottesville rally.

The president has now clearly condemned the white supremacists, KKK, neo-Nazis and other "extremist groups" that were responsible for this rally and the loss of three lives that resulted.

Now, all we need is a little backtracking on Trump's unequivocal support for the RAISE Act, whose restrictions on family immigration Nolan himself has pointed out are objectionable; and then there might be a better chance of such negotiations actually producing a result, instead of merely being an empty gesture and one more excuse for Nolan to blame the Democrats for a failure whose real cause goes back to racist attitudes toward immigrants that have been of America's history from the very beginning.

Nolan, isn't it time to admit and confront this sorry history of racism, which responsible leaders in both parties have condemned, and the effect that this history is still having on immigration policies and proposals today, rather than blaming other people for calling attention to this elephant in the presumptive immigration reform negotiating room?

With all due respect, Nolan is distorting my comments once again. I have made very clear above that, at least in principle, I support his suggestion of bipartisan negotiations on immigration reform, in which both the legitimate concerns of DREAMers and those of the RAISE Act proponents would be on the table for discussion.

I am merely pointing out that both the DREAMers issue and the RAISE Act itself are inextricably tied up with the racial politics which have been part of our history, not only since the infamous Chinese exclusion laws of the late 19th century, but going back even to Benjamin Franklin's attacks against German immigrants to the British colony of Pennsylvania based on their alleged skin color before America even became independent.

No immigration scholar of Nolan's distinguished reputation can possibly deny the existence of this history; and just in case anyone has forgotten about it, the neo-Nazis who organized the appalling August 12 violent rally of white supremacist hate which almost every Republican leader in America (except Donald Trump) has already condemned for its overt white supremacist racism have just given us a very disturbing reminder that this history is also part of America's present, not just its past.

Roger Algase
Attorney at Law

Again, it doesn't matter whether Roger's negative opinion of the republicans is right or wrong. You have to deal with them if you want immigration reform of any kind, and saying terrible things about them is not the way to facilitate negotiations.

And just in case any readers still misunderstand my position, I am not advocating something patently absurd, such as a Democratic negotiator sitting down with Republican ones and saying: "OK, lets now talk about your racist RAISE Act"!

What I am saying is that if we had more responsible presidential leadership, such as a little less unequivocal support for the RAISE Act, which even Nolan rightly objects to for its proposal to slash family immigration (most of which happens to be from non-white parts of the world), and a little more unequivocal condemnation of the appallingly racist and white supremacist neo-Nazis who instigated the August 12 violent hate rally in Virginia, there would be a better chance of successful bipartisan immigration reform negotiations, not ones that would be doomed to failure in advance.

As I have pointed out in the news report links provided in my own ilw.com comment on this rally, almost every other Republican leader in America has explicitly condemned the "white nationalist" (a/k/a neo-Nazi) organizers of this rally.

What is holding the president of the United States back from doing the same?

As a late note to the above, the latest news reports say that the president has now clarified his remarks to condemn white supremacists, the KKK and the neo-Nazis.

Once again, I would respectfully encourage Nolan to confine his arguments to the legal and policy issues raised by his article's no doubt well meant proposal for immigration reform compromise and to avoid personal attacks, such as accusations of writing out of "anger" against commentators who may happen to disagree with some of his views about legal or policy matters.

Again with all due respect, Nolan is distorting my comments once again. I have made very clear above that, at least in principle, I support his suggestion of bipartisan negotiations on immigration reform, in which both the legitimate concerns of DREAMers and those of the RAISE Act proponents would be on the table for discussion.

I am merely pointing out that both the DREAMers issue and the RAISE Act itself are inextricably tied up with the racial politics which have been part of our history, not only since the infamous Chinese exclusion laws of the late 19th century, but going back even to Benjamin Franklin's attacks against German immigrants to the British colony of Pennsylvania based on their alleged skin color before America even became independent.

No immigration scholar of Nolan's distinguished reputation can possibly deny the existence of this history; and just in case anyone has forgotten about it, the neo-Nazis who organized the appalling August 12 violent rally of white supremacist hate which almost every Republican leader in America (except Donald Trump) has already condemned for its overt white supremacist racism have just given us a very disturbing reminder that this history is also part of America's present, not just its past.

The ancient Greeks had a word for Nolan's attempt to blame the targets of Trump's RACE Act (sorry for the entirely intentional typo) and, very possibly by implication as well, the neo-Nazi rally rally which, according to one of its own leading supporters, was inspired by Trump's promises as embodied in that bill and the rest of his immigration agenda, for the overt racism and bigotry that these Trump-supported proposals contain.

It was known as "sophistry" in which any proposition, now matter how reasonable or true - could be turned around on its head to prove the opposite.

At the same time, the Sophists could take any obviously false proposition and turn it around on its head to make it seem true.

I hope I am not being unfair to the Sophists, and I apologize to them if I am.

Roger Algase
Attorney at Law

I am blaming the anger that Roger and his kindred spirits are causing with their constant, harsh criticisms and refusal to try to find a way to work with the Republicans, and with their insistence on political correctness.

They aren't hurting the republicans; they are hurting the undocumented immigrants who are depending on the democrats to find a way to give them lawful status.

Look through Roger's comments. Do you see anything that would facilitate compromise to reach an agreement with the republicans? Or just angry comments that shut the door to negotiations with the republicans?

Could we please keep this discussion on the level of legal analysis, which i have been careful to do in my above response to Nolan's article, and avoid personal attacks on the motives of commentators such as myself who may happen to disagree with Nolan's views about immigration -related laws or policy proposals?

This discussion is about a suggestion for immigration reform legislation that Nolan makes in his article.

It is not about Nolan's family.

The ancient Greeks had a word for Nolan's attempt to blame the targets of Trump's RACE Act (sorry for the entirely intentional typo) and, very possibly by implication as well, the neo-Nazi rally rally which, according to one of its own leading supporters, David Duke, was inspired by Trump's promises as embodied in that bill and the rest of his immigration agenda, for the overt racism and bigotry that these Trump-supported proposals contain.

It was known as "sophistry" in which any proposition, now matter how reasonable or true - could be turned around on its head to prove the opposite.

At the same time, the Sophists could take any obviously false proposition and turn it around on its head to make it seem true.

I hope I am not being unfair to the Sophists, and I apologize to them if I am.

Nolan is not even correct when he states that I am opposed to his proposal for bipartisan negotiations on immigration reform, in which both the DREAmer's desire for more permanent legal status and the RAISE Act's proponent's wish to curtail certain types of legal immigration would be on the table.

I have made clear that I entirely support Nolan's idea in principle and I commend him for his obviously well meant suggestion.

I am only pointing out certain practical obstacles which would be likely to arise in the course of those negotiations - obstacles of which both the neo-Nazi hate rally in Charlottesville, and the president's pointed refusal to condemn the organizers of the rally specifically, rather than merely issuing a weak and ineffective condemnation of bigotry and racism "on many sides" - whatever that is supposed to mean - are highly disturbing symptoms of what is wrong with our society and our current administration that Nolan persists in trying or to ignore or to pretend do not exist.

Nolan makes a valid point in this article, namely about cuts in family immigration quotas being unacceptable because they would hurt constituents of Senators and Representatives on both sides of the aisle.

With regard to eliminating the diversity visa program, this might seem to make some sense on the surface, but when one looks at its history, the idea of eliminating this program has at least two strikes against it.

Strike 1: The Democrats already tried caving and throwing this program under the bus in the last ill-fated compromise attempt at comprehensive immigration form which passed the Senate but got nowhere in the House.

The bill which passed the Senate would have eliminated the diversity visa program entirely.
Strike 2: The origin of the diversity visa program was openly racial; its predecessor, the so-called AA-1 program was clearly intended to make visas available for the white countries of Europe only (plus a couple of East Asian countries, and a handful of others around the world with significant white populations). Ultimately AA-1 morphed into the DV-1 program, which has turned out to be a big boon to non-white areas of the world, especially Sub- Saharan Africa.

Cancelling a program that was originally devised to help white immigrants because it has since turned into one that helps mainly black and brown immigrants would be widely perceived as racially motivated legislation, and with ample justification.

And here we come to the main flaw in Nolan's ostensibly reasonable analysis, namely that it leaves out the racial motivations that have dominated America's immigration history ever since the time of the Chinese exclusion laws, and still continue to do so.

Just in case anyone has any doubts on that score, he or she needs only read the latest headlines about the appalling hate rally conducted on August 12 in Charlottesville, Virginia by neo-Nazi groups (now euphemistically known as "white nationalists") holding storm trooper style torches and signs saying "blood and soil" (a direct English translation of the Nazi slogan: blut und boden), in which three lives so far have been lost. See my ilw.com comment:

As I point out in my comment, former KKK leader David Duke had the following to say in support of that rally (whose white nationalist organizers Trump has so far refused to single out for criticism, even though most other leading Republicans in America, many of whom support Trump, have lost no time in doing so - see the sources cited in my above ilw.com comment):

To quote David Duke:
"This represents a turning point for the people of this country. We are determined to take our country back...We are going to fulfill the promises of Donald Trump. That's what [we] believed in. That's why we voted fpr Donald Trump."

See also, Petuta Dvorak, writing in the Washington Post on August 13:
Trump lit the torches of white supremacy in Charlottesville. We must extinguish them.

(Sorry, I do not have a direct link. Please go to Google for access to this article.)

Can there be any reasonable doubt that the RAISE Act, which is obviously intended to take America a long way backward toward the "Nordics"-only white supremacist immigration policies of the 1924 "national origins" immigration act which Adolf Hitler expressed such admiration for in MeinKampf, is one of the "promises of Donald Trump" that David Duke was referring to in the above quote?

At least that is one question which Democrats and other supporters of the DREAMers will no doubt be asking themselves before entering into any negotiations (as Nolan commendably recommends should take place, and clearly with the best of intentions) with supporters of the RAISE Act (which I have suggested elsewhere might more properly be called the RACE Act), and with good reason.

Roger Algase
Attorney at Law

Roger's comments remind me of a conversation I had with my daughter when she had just turned 16 and was learning to drive. When we approached an intersection, she failed to slow down in case the car approaching it from a different direction failed to yield the right away. When I pointed this out, her response was that she had the right away.

I told her that being right wouldn't be any comfort to her mother if the other car ran through the intersection and killed both of us.

I am not suggesting that I think Roger is right. He isn't. He is blinded by prejudice against people who have immigration views he dislikes. My point is that it doesn't matter whether he is right or wrong. His refusal to consider immigration reform from any perspective but his own kills any chance of reaching an agreement with the republicans. Literally makes it impossible.

Keep preaching to the choir on how awful the republicans are, bearing down especially hard on Trump (the reincarnation of Hitler...or is it Satan?). It won't hurt you. It will just hurt the DREAMers and other undocumented aliens who might benefit from working with the republicans.

Nolan, out of respect for the death of the brave young woman who gave her life in opposing the white supremacist neo-nazi bigots at the August 12 Charlottesvile rally, don't you think that the Republicans should withdraw the RAISE Act, which the neo-nazi leader, Richard Spencer, has called "awesome" according to the Huffington Post, from consideration and make sure that it never sees the light of day again?

Shouldn't you also consider withdrawing your own article above, which seems to give soem legitimacy to this bill as a "basis for negotiation"?

How can anyone one negotiate with white supremacist hate, as Spencer correctly sees embodied in this bill?

Just a helpful suggestion.

Roger Algase
Attorney at Law

My earlier comments to Nolan's article follow below:

This is an update as of 2:25 pm on August 13 to my original comments below to note that the White House has now updated its original comment on the Charlottesville rally to condemn all "extremist groups", including white supremacists, the KKK and neo-Nazis.

This clarification by the president is as welcome as it is overdue.
Better late than never, Mr. President!

My original responses to Nolan's above article appear below:

Nolan makes a valid point in this article, namely about cuts in family immigration quotas being unacceptable because they would hurt constituents of Senators and Representatives on both sides of the aisle.

With regard to eliminating the diversity visa program, this might seem to make some sense on the surface, but when one looks at its history, the idea of eliminating this program has at least two strikes against it.

Strike 1: The Democrats already tried caving and throwing this program under the bus in the last ill-fated compromise attempt at comprehensive immigration form which passed the Senate but got nowhere in the House.

The bill which passed the Senate would have eliminated the diversity visa program entirely.
Strike 2: The origin of the diversity visa program was openly racial; its predecessor, the so-called AA-1 program was clearly intended to make visas available for the white countries of Europe only (plus a couple of East Asian countries, and a handful of others around the world with significant white populations). Ultimately AA-1 morphed into the DV-1 program, which has turned out to be a big boon to non-white areas of the world, especially Sub- Saharan Africa.

Cancelling a program that was originally devised to help white immigrants because it has since turned into one that helps mainly black and brown immigrants would be widely perceived as racially motivated legislation, and with ample justification.

And here we come to the main flaw in Nolan's ostensibly reasonable analysis, namely that it leaves out the racial motivations that have dominated America's immigration history ever since the time of the Chinese exclusion laws, and still continue to do so.

Just in case anyone has any doubts on that score, he or she needs only read the latest headlines about the appalling hate rally conducted on August 12 in Charlottesville, Virginia by neo-Nazi groups (now euphemistically known as "white nationalists") holding storm trooper style torches and signs saying "blood and soil" (a direct English translation of the Nazi slogan: blut und boden), in which three lives so far have been lost. See my ilw.com comment:

As I point out in my comment, former KKK leader David Duke had the following to say in support of that rally (whose white nationalist organizers Trump has so far refused to single out for criticism, even though most other leading Republicans in America, many of whom support Trump, have lost no time in doing so - see the sources cited in my above ilw.com comment):

To quote David Duke:
"This represents a turning point for the people of this country. We are determined to take our country back...We are going to fulfill the promises of Donald Trump. That's what [we] believed in. That's why we voted fpr Donald Trump."

See also, Petuta Dvorak, writing in the Washington Post on August 13:
Trump lit the torches of white supremacy in Charlottesville. We must extinguish them.

(Sorry, I do not have a direct link. Please go to Google for access to this article.)

Can there be any reasonable doubt that the RAISE Act, which is obviously intended to take America a long way backward toward the "Nordics"-only white supremacist immigration policies of the 1924 "national origins" immigration act which Adolf Hitler expressed such admiration for in MeinKampf, is one of the "promises of Donald Trump" that David Duke was referring to in the above quote?

At least that is one question which Democrats and other supporters of the DREAMers will no doubt be asking themselves before entering into any negotiations (as Nolan commendably recommends should take place, and clearly with the best of intentions) with supporters of the RAISE Act (which I have suggested elsewhere might more properly be called the RACE Act), and with good reason.

I have rarely, if ever, made a negative (or other) comment about Trump, Sessions, or anyone else involved in discussion of immigration policy without specific references to things the person has actually said or done.

Moreover, when I attribute a statement or action to any such person I try as often as I can to provide a specific link or reference.

To give just one example, here is a link to the 2015 immigration "Handbook" in which then Senator Jeff Session expressed effusive praise for the infamous 1924 "national origins" immigration law which Sessions claimed helped the job security of American workers, but which he, as an expert on immigration, without question knew was enacted for the purpose of barring all but a very few Jews, Catholics, Asians and most other non-"Nordic" people of the world from immigrating to the US, in accordance with the openly expressed prejudices and racial theories which influenced so many US politicians at that time. :

Is it an expression of "hate" against someone to quote or provide links to the person's own words in discussing that person's views on one issue or another?

If Nolan can find a specific example of a case where I have attributed a statement or action to Trump or one of his supporters or officials, or any other politician or figure, which wasn't true, Nolan is welcome to point that out so I can correct it.

To call truthful and accurate references to a politician's or other public figure's own statements and actions "hatred" is nothing but an attempt to intimidate people from expressing legitimate views for purpose of discussion.

I will not dignify Nolan's personal attacks against me with any further response. This is a forum for discussion of legal and policy issues, not for casting personal aspersions on other commentators who may disagree with one's views.

Nolan is showing the perfect way never to have agreement on immigration - make personal attacks on people who disagree with his opinions and call them "haters".

Let me give two examples. On occasions too numerous to mention Nolan as accused me of "hatred" for the president, Donald Trump. mainly because I disagree with his immigration policies, not only on enforcement, as Nolan mentions, but on legal immigration as well.

It is true that I do not often support Trump's immigration policies, which I believe are based on the same kind of white supremacist, Eurocentric world view that was so evident in his recent Warsaw address and in his all too frequent vicious attacks on minority immigrants which are as matter of public record and even Nolan cannot explain away.

But I invite Nolan to turn to the list of most popular bloggings of the month for July in the August 7 Immigration Daily. He will find an article of mine supporting and praising Trump as "Truly Presidential" for having intervened to allow the brave young women on the Afghan robotics team to come to the US for their competition.

"Hatred" Nolan? Your readers deserve better than that.

Second example. Nolan accuses me of comparing people whom I disagree with on immigration to Hitler.

Since I have always been careful to distinguish Trump from Hitler, even while pointing out certain authoritarian tendencies that I see Trump as having in common with Hitler and other dictators, Nolan may be referring to my frequent mention of the fact that former Senator and current Attorney General Jeff Sessions, less than 2 years ago, in his January, 2015 immigration "Handbook" for Congressional Republicans, praised the infamous 1924 Johnson-Reed immigration act.

Every responsible historian agrees that this law had as its main purpose barring Jews, Catholics, Asians, and most other immigrants of the world except for the "Nordic" countries of Europe from immigrating to the United States.

Sessions' support for this law is a matter of record - Nolan can read the "Handbook" for himself whenever he wants. I have provided the link in some of my discussions of it.

It is also an indisputable historical fact that some 90 years earlier, Adolf Hitler praised the same law in his notorious manifesto, Mein Kampf. I have also provided a link previously, or Nolan can look it up himself.

Their stated reasons were different; Hitler openly praised the racist world view behind that law; whereas Sessions attempted to present it (falsely, and deceptively, in my view) as merely a measure aimed at protecting US workers from foreign competition.

But I have never compared Sessions with Hitler, merely because they both supported the same law almost a century apart.

With regard to the Republican party and to Trump himself, the fact that both received enthusiastic support from a segment of the electorate who openly believe in what as been politely called "white nationalism" was attested to in countless news reports during the campaign and after the election.

It is also a matter of record, which cannot be whitewashed or explained way, that there is a long and well documented history of Republicans having appealed to white racial prejudices to gain votes, at least going back to the time of Richard Nixon's notorious "Southern Strategy" in the 1970's.

That does not mean that every Republican official holds such views today or that even a majority do. I have never said so

Are we supposed to consign these obvious facts to an Orwellian memory hole? Does Nolan have a list of facts which it acceptable to use in discussions with him and other facts which are equally true, but verboten when commenting on his articles?

I would respectfully encourage Nolan to refrain from personal attacks against other commentators who might disagree with his views or point out perceived flaws in them.

Roger Algase
Attorney at Law

Describing your attitude towards Trump as "hatred" is not a personal attack. It's an objective description of the way you describe Trump and his immigration policies, and his associates, e.g., Sessions. And you were doing the same thing to Republican congressmen before Trump became a politician. It's sad that you can't see it.

But you do occasionally give the man credit for doing something right.

Nolan is showing the perfect way never to have agreement on immigration - make personal attacks on people who disagree with his opinions and call them "haters".

Let me give two examples. On occasions too numerous to mention Nolan as accused me of "hatred" for the president, Donald Trump. mainly because I disagree with his immigration policies, not only on enforcement, as Nolan mentions, but on legal immigration as well.

It is true that I do not often support Trump's immigration policies, which I believe are based on the same kind of white supremacist, Eurocentric world view that was so evident in his recent Warsaw address and in his all too frequent vicious attacks on minority immigrants which are as matter of public record and even Nolan cannot explain away.

But I invite Nolan to turn to the list of most popular bloggings of the month for July in the August 7 Immigration Daily. He will find an article of mine supporting and praising Trump as "Truly Presidential" for having intervened to allow the brave young women on the Afghan robotics team to come to the US for their competition.

"Hatred" Nolan? Your readers deserve better than that.

Second example. Nolan accuses me of comparing people whom I disagree with on immigration to Hitler.

Since I have always been careful to distinguish Trump from Hitler, even while pointing out certain authoritarian tendencies that I see Trump as having in common with Hitler and other dictators, Nolan may be referring to my frequent mention of the fact that former Senator and current Attorney General Jeff Sessions, less than 2 years ago, in his January, 2015 immigration "Handbook" for Congressional Republicans, praised the infamous 1924 Johnson-Reed immigration act.

Every responsible historian agrees that this law had as its main purpose barring Jews, Catholics, Asians, and most other immigrants of the world except for the "Nordic" countries of Europe from immigrating to the United States.

Sessions' support for this law is a matter of record - Nolan can read the "Handbook" for himself whenever he wants. I have provided the link in some of my discussions of it.

It is also an indisputable historical fact that some 90 years earlier, Adolf Hitler praised the same law in his notorious manifesto, Mein Kampf. I have also provided a link previously, or Nolan can look it up himself.

Their stated reasons were different; Hitler openly praised the racist world view behind that law; whereas Sessions attempted to present it (falsely, and deceptively, in my view) as merely a measure aimed at protecting US workers from foreign competition.

But I have never compared Sessions with Hitler, merely because they both supported the same law almost a century apart.

With regard to the Republican party and to Trump himself, the fact that both received enthusiastic support from a segment of the electorate who openly believe in what as been politely called "white nationalism" was attested to in countless news reports during the campaign and after the election.

It is also a matter of record, which cannot be whitewashed or explained way, that there is a long and well documented history of Republicans having appealed to white racial prejudices to gain votes, at least going back to the time of Richard Nixon's notorious "Southern Strategy" in the 1970's.

That does not mean that every Republican official holds such views today or that even a majority do. I have never said so

Are we supposed to consign these obvious facts to an Orwellian memory hole? Does Nolan have a list of facts which it acceptable to use in discussions with him and other facts which are equally true, but verboten when commenting on his articles?

I would respectfully encourage Nolan to refrain from personal attacks against other commentators who might disagree with his views or point out perceived flaws in them.

Having the two parties work together on immigration is a worthy goal and one which would be to everyone's benefit if it could be achieved. I am entirely lacking in Nolan's expertise as a political analyst and I cannot speak with any kind of authority and experience on this point.

However, one has the impression that today, the two parties are divided along racial lines, arguably to a greater extent than at any time I can remember; and I am old enough to have at least vague memories of the Franklin Roosevelt era shortly before that president's death.

As long as the two parties are racially polarized, with one party relying on a base of white supremacist voters (I am not saying that everyone in that party believes in white supremacy), and the other party at least purporting to support minority Americans (how effectively it is doing so is a different question), true collaboration between the parties on a traditionally racially charged issue such as immigration will not be easy to achieve.

It will require more flexibility and good will on both sides than appear to be in evidence now.

Roger Algase
Attorney at Law

No, Roger, you and your fellow haters are keeping the parties apart. Would you be receptive to working with people who call you a racist and claim that white supremacists are your base? And that leaves out the comparisons you have made with Hitler and claims about turning the country into another Nazi Germany. It would take a lot of time to go through your almost daily blogs to make a list of all of the horrible things you have said about Trump and other Republicans who have advocated the enforcement of our immigration laws. Yes, it goes back way before Trump became a politician.

How can you say such things about Trump and the other Republicans and then claim that they don't want to cooperate? I have an experiment for you to try. The next time you want to persuade your wife to do something that she doesn't want to do, start by calling her the three most hateful things you can think of. Let me know if it works better with her than it does with Trump and the other Republicans.

Having the two parties work together on immigration is a worthy goal and one which would be to everyone's benefit if it could be achieved. I am entirely lacking in Nolan's expertise as a political analyst and I cannot speak with any kind of authority and experience on this point.

However, one has the impression that today, the two parties are divided along racial lines, arguably to a greater extent than at any time I can remember; and I am old enough to have at least vague memories of the Franklin Roosevelt era shortly before that president's death.

As long as the two parties are racially polarized, with one party relying on a base of white supremacist voters (I am not saying that everyone in that party believes in white supremacy), and the other party at least purporting to support minority Americans (how effectively it is doing so is a different question), true collaboration between the parties on a traditionally racially charged issue such as immigration will not be easy to achieve.

It will require more flexibility and good will on both sides than appear to be in evidence now.

I will add one more thought. I cannot possibly compare to Nolan as a political strategist, and I would never presume to dispute his expertise in that area. But it is an indisputable fact, that at times in our recent history, bills that had no chance of passing but were fought for again and again by their supporters eventually became law anyway.

This was true of the great 1960's civil rights laws, including the 1965 immigration law mentioned above, which had been blocked over and over again by racist Southern Democrats who believed in the inherent inferiority of all non-white people, and whose racist views were eventually taken over by the Republicans as part of President Richard Nixon's notorious "Southern Strategy".

But somehow, in the mid-1960's one remarkable former Southern segregationist politician from Texas, President Lyndon Johnson, changed his views, and what had been previously impossible became possible.

I am familiar with that era from my own personal knowledge even though I cannot claim to have played any significant role in that period.

But as a young Harvard Law School graduate, not yet admitted to the bar, I did have the honor of helping (in a small, behind the scenes, supporting role, working as a law assistant to one of the lead attorneys) in preparing a lawsuit on behalf of a young African-American clergyman and civil rights fighter by the name of Martin Luther KingJr., involving a certain speech which he gave in Washington in 1963 and which is still remembered for its now world-famous words: "I Have aDream."

That is the tradition of the equality of all people that today's DREAMers are seeking to uphold, and which the Democrats who are supporting and drawing attention to their cause of racial justice by introducing legislation to help them can look back on with pride, long after all the sniping by commentators such as Nolan has been consigned to history's dustbin.
The battle of the young men and women known as DREAMers to maintain legal protection against deportation, a battle in which the president has supported them in up to now but could change his mind on in an instant, is far more than just a fight over immigration status; it is fight for the dignity. equality and respect for human rights, and for justice for ALL Americans, whether their heritage is Latino, Asian, African-American, Muslim, or whatever, together with and on the same basis as the white majority.

That is what Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I have a Dream" speech was about 54 years ago.

That is what the efforts of the DREAMers- and the Congressional Democrats who are supporting their cause with proposed legislation even though it may most likely be doomed to fail - are about today.

This is the 1965 immigration reform law's message of justice and equality for minority immigrants and Americans alike which the Congressional Democrats who have been so persistent and faithful to America's true values and ideals of a color-blind society by introducing legislation to support the DREAMers again and again. without giving up or losing hope understand, but which most of the Republican majority, and the Republican president who is leading an assault both against minority immigrants in many different ways and against the voting rights of minority Americans, have yet to understand or accept.

These courageous young people and the Democrats who support them deserve our nation's admiration and respect, not narrow-minded and cynical comments to the effect that they are on a mission of "false hope".

Roger Algase
Attorney at Law

And now Roger is giving them false hope too.

Roger also seems to have missed the fact that I suggested a different path for DREAM Act legislation that I think might be successful. Probably because Roger is not willing to entertain the possibility that the two parties can work together on legislation that would meet the essential political needs of both. Working together on compromise apparently is not something he thinks is worth considering. The only political system he would welcome would be a dictatorship with a dictator who shares his views on immigration policy. Democracies require cooperation and compromise.

In fact, though, that is the way the last legalization program was established with IRCA in 1986. The parties found a way to work together. For more information, see my article, " What is IRCA, and What Does It Have To Do with Comprehensive Immigration Reform?" at https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnews...edirected=true

I will add one more thought. I cannot possibly compare to Nolan as a political strategist, and I would never presume to dispute his expertise in that area. But it is an indisputable fact, that at times in our recent history, bills that had no chance of passing but were fought for again and again by their supporters eventually became law anyway.

This was true of the great 1960's civil rights laws, including the 1965 immigration law mentioned above, which had been blocked over and over again by racist Southern Democrats who believed in the inherent inferiority of all non-white people, and whose racist views were eventually taken over by the Republicans as part of President Richard Nixon's notorious "Southern Strategy".

But somehow, in the mid-1960's one remarkable former Southern segregationist politician from Texas, President Lyndon Johnson, changed his views, and what had been previously impossible became possible.

I am familiar with that era from my own personal knowledge even though I cannot claim to have played any significant role in that period.

But as a young Harvard Law School graduate, not yet admitted to the bar, I did have the honor of helping (in a small, behind the scenes, supporting role, working as a law assistant to one of the lead attorneys) in preparing a lawsuit on behalf of a young African-American clergyman and civil rights fighter by the name of Martin Luther KingJr., involving a certain speech which he gave in Washington in 1963 and which is still remembered for its now world-famous words: "I Have aDream."

That is the tradition of the equality of all people that today's DREAMers are seeking to uphold, and which the Democrats who are supporting and drawing attention to their cause of racial justice by introducing legislation to help them can look back on with pride, long after all the sniping by commentators such as Nolan has been consigned to history's dustbin.
The battle of the young men and women known as DREAMers to maintain legal protection against deportation, a battle in which the president has supported them in up to now but could change his mind on in an instant, is far more than just a fight over immigration status; it is fight for the dignity. equality and respect for human rights, and for justice for ALL Americans, whether their heritage is Latino, Asian, African-American, Muslim, or whatever, together with and on the same basis as the white majority.

That is what Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I have a Dream" speech was about 54 years ago.

That is what the efforts of the DREAMers- and the Congressional Democrats who are supporting their cause with proposed legislation even though it may most likely be doomed to fail - are about today.

This is the 1965 immigration reform law's message of justice and equality for minority immigrants and Americans alike which the Congressional Democrats who have been so persistent and faithful to America's true values and ideals of a color-blind society by introducing legislation to support the DREAMers again and again. without giving up or losing hope understand, but which most of the Republican majority, and the Republican president who is leading an assault both against minority immigrants in many different ways and against the voting rights of minority Americans, have yet to understand or accept.

These courageous young people and the Democrats who support them deserve our nation's admiration and respect, not narrow-minded and cynical comments to the effect that they are on a mission of "false hope".

I certainly agree with Nolan that bills to help DREAMers have virtually no chance of passing in the current, or any other Republican- controlled Congress.

Does that mean that the bill's Democratic sponsors are wasting their time or engaging in a cynical publicity stunt at the expense of the young people involved and their families, as Nolan seems to imply, if I am reading his comments correctly?

Not at all, as I explain in my additional comment below.

First, however, my comments above, even though they are about a different pending immigration bill, the so-called RAISE act, are directly pertinent to the reasons why Nolan's statement about a bill to provide relief for DREAMERSers is true.

Unless I am overlooking something in Nolan's article, I don't see much discussion of that issue on his part.

So why is there "No Hope" for a pro-DREAMer law to pass in the current Republican- controlled Congress?

Simple answer: The Republican party (by and large - there are some welcome exceptions) has never accepted the basic principle of the 1965 civil rights immigration reform law which ended 40 years of "Nordics"-only immigration dictated by the infamous 1924 "National Origins" immigration act (which Hitler wrote favorably about in Mein Kampf, and which Trump's AG and top immigration adviser,Jeff Sessions, also praised in his 2015 immigration "Handbook" some 90 years later).

DREAMers are not from Europe. They are, with few if any exceptions, from Latin America.

Therefore, they have virtually no hope of relief from a Congress dominated by a party that is still fixated on preserving, or returning to, the spirit of an immigration system enacted almost a century ago which barred most immigrants from outside Europe entirely (as well as barring millions of potential immigrants from within Europe itself if they happened to be Jewish, Catholic - or Eastern European).

POLITICO has an excellent and comprehensive discussion of this issue in its article, published almost exactly a year ago, on August 20, 2016:

If Nolan is seriously interested in the question of why DREAMers have little or no chance of receiving any help from the Republican Congress, instead of just bashing the Democrats for trying to help them anyway, this article is the place to begin.

Roger, my article is not about "what kind of immigrants should be welcome in America, and from which parts of the world." It's about the fact that DREAM Acts are introduced every congress and have been since 2001, and the congressmen who do this know, or certainly should know, that they are giving false hope to hundreds of thousands of young people who were brought here illegally when they were children.

Do you have any compassion for the immigrants you keep talking about? If you care about them, why aren't you criticizing the congressmen who introduce these bills. It is cruel for them to raise the hopes of these immigrants and their families when they know that a DREAM Act is not going to be enacted, and they have been doing it for more than 15 years now.